Juror#8 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I have issues with Obama for his many character flaws. I also have issues with him over his policies. If he was honest I wouldn't have an issue with his policies because he never would have been in a position that mattered. Specifically, what character flaws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Which was kinda Crawley's - and tgregg's point. "Acts of terror" is not "terrorism". They are semantically distinct - an "act of terror" is a single specific action taken to incite a reaction of fear. "Terrorism" is the application of "acts of terror" within the framework of a strategy to achieve a specific set of goals. Basically, the difference between some asshat shooting up a Sikh temple, and 9/11. The administration took two weeks (more or less) to decide the "act of terror" was "terrorism". Everyone BUT the administration admits that. But - and here's the key point in this whole discussion - ROMNEY'S the one that made them semantically equivalent in the debate. He confused the two, used the wrong term, then tried to press the point. That little !@#$-up is ALL on him, and no one else. If Obama took advantage of Romney's !@#$-up...well, good for him. That's what you do in a debate. Maybe I haven't been following this closely enough. I thought Obama was claiming he called it an act of terror on 9-12 and Romney was disputing that. Romney was the one claiming the distinction between "acts of terror" in a general sense and a specific act of terrorism. That's what I got out of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 hehe, if you buy the narrative that Obama made Washington gridlocked, then I have a bridge to sell. you. Two. Years. Full control. Both houses. Why do you guys consistently pretend like that didn't happen? TWO FREAKING YEARS. Including almost five months with a Super Majority. But no. The GOP obstructed his agenda. Right. We're with ya, man. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Holy crap. RCP delegates map now has Romney ahead of Obama 206-201. http://www.realclear...ollege_map.html Been like that for a while. But if you look deeper, it has PA as a tossup, even though Romney trails by 4-5 and I can't believe PA will go Republican. Other states are tossups too, even though you would guess what way they will turn. Flo Rida and Ohio are the big undecided nuggets. Last I looked, it had Florida as +2 for Mitt and Ohio as +2 for Obama. Florida is HUGE for them both. Much bigger for Romney though as his math doesn't look like it works without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Which is a point that TheNewBills has been making, and I've already admitted the validity of it (without consenting to agree with it, mind you - you can go back maybe two pages, and see where I said as much). And regarding Obama telling him to "proceed"...that's a REAL stretch of an interpretation, considering that it's the only time either of them allowed the other to proceed, and considering the smirk Obama had when he said it. He knew he had Romney on the hook, and he was looking forward to seeing him slammed for it. And I don't blame him one bit. You could be right -- while watching it my take was he just wanted to move on because he already thought he got Romney with his "check the transcript" line but Romney plowed over it. I thought Obama was thinking, "I just scored, move on" and then was astounded and delighted when Romney kept on it. That was just my live reaction to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Which is a point that TheNewBills has been making, and I've already admitted the validity of it (without consenting to agree with it, mind you - you can go back maybe two pages, and see where I said as much). And regarding Obama telling him to "proceed"...that's a REAL stretch of an interpretation, considering that it's the only time either of them allowed the other to proceed, and considering the smirk Obama had when he said it. He knew he had Romney on the hook, and he was looking forward to seeing him slammed for it. And I don't blame him one bit. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought that BO couldn't remember what he said, and didn't want to put himself into a position that he had to creatively explain later, so he told Romney to go on in order to quickly move through the topic. It seems like he was questioning himself and had little Axelrod on his shoulders saying (stop talking). It makes more sense when you consider that he became emboldened when Crowley dignified his original comment. He had a reason to restore his confidence in his original thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Been like that for a while. Relax, JA. You're the last person that post was for. Romney could be sworn in today, repeal Obamacare tomorow, and you'd still tell everyone how certain you are about the Obama landslide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Two. Years. Full control. Both houses. Why do you guys consistently pretend like that didn't happen? TWO FREAKING YEARS. Including almost five months with a Super Majority. But no. The GOP obstructed his agenda. Right. We're with ya, man. :lol: This is such a disingenuous reinvention of history. I know it's been the talking point for so long now that it's been elevated to "fact" in the talk radio world, but it's just not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 This is such a disingenuous reinvention of history. I know it's been the talking point for so long now that it's been elevated to "fact" in the talk radio world, but it's just not reality. Okay. What is reality? Please explain it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought that BO couldn't remember what he said, and didn't want to put himself into a position that he had to creatively explain later, so he told Romney to go on in order to quickly move through the topic. It seems like he was questioning himself and had little Axelrod on his shoulders saying (stop talking). It makes more sense when you consider that he became emboldened when Crowley dignified his original comment. He had a reason to restore his confidence in his original thought process. No, Obama definitely knew what he said, he knew Candy had the transcript at the ready. Okay. What is reality? Please explain it to me. The answer lies within your original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought that BO couldn't remember what he said, and didn't want to put himself into a position that he had to creatively explain later, so he told Romney to go on in order to quickly move through the topic. It seems like he was questioning himself and had little Axelrod on his shoulders saying (stop talking). It makes more sense when you consider that he became emboldened when Crowley dignified his original comment. He had a reason to restore his confidence in his original thought process. You don't remember exactly right. He insisted he said it, then said check the transcripts, then Candy said it was in the transcripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Specifically, what character flaws? He lies, over and over. While this alone should be enough, he also hasn't put the effort into the serious aspects of his job, whether it's his "Jobs Council", security briefings, budgets, crossing the aisle. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 He lies, over and over. If that's a deciding factor for you, how are you going to decide between the two? Honest question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 No, Obama definitely knew what he said, he knew Candy had the transcript at the ready. The answer lies within your original post. Yes, Obie Wan Kenobie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Two. Years. Full control. Both houses. Why do you guys consistently pretend like that didn't happen? TWO FREAKING YEARS. Including almost five months with a Super Majority. But no. The GOP obstructed his agenda. Right. We're with ya, man. :lol: Is 5 months a long time? Do you know how long it takes to craft a piece of legislation? If it starts in committee, if it's amended four times, if the lawyers look at it, if the LDs detail it, if it's voted on in committee, if it makes the floor, if it's ran through the LDs for 400+ people, if the LD kicks it to some junior peon for a synopsis, if the synopsis is given depth by the LD for the House member, if they discuss, if they wheel and deal, if the lobbyists incentivize the vote, if the lobbyist push back, if it goes to Senate, if it needs to run through office politics, btw lobbyists are more influential amongst the aristocracy, if there is too much distance between H and S, if it goes to conference committee, if the lobbyist get back in... You think that you can direct a meaningful legislative agenda in 5 months? A bill or two....ok....especially if he took his transition time to get through much of the bueracratic and technical **** that takes months. The problem is that many people think that since you can buy a house in 5 months, and that since that is 60% of a normal human gestation period, it's plenty of time to put meaning and effect to some paper. It's not. I should know. I was a Congressional staffer. I was the "junior peon" in the equation. It is ridiculous how long it takes for two congresspersons to agree that mankind needs to piss. The truth is, they obstructed his agenda. Republican set a record for obstruction. Why debate a fact? Edited October 18, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 If that's a deciding factor for you, how are you going to decide between the two? Honest question. He not only lies about his core beliefs, but he says one thing and does another. You can say all you want about Romney being a flip-flopper but I can guarantee you Romney won't change his mind once he's in office and say that's he's now in favor of abortion, raising taxes or big budget deficits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Is 5 months a long time? Do you know how long it takes to craft a piece of legislation? It depends. Do you have to read it before you vote for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Is 5 months a long time? Do you know how long it takes to craft a piece of legislation? If it starts in committee, if it's amended four times, if the lawyers look at it, if the LDs detail it, if it's voted on in committee, if it makes the floor, if it's ran through the LDs for 400+ people, if the LD kicks it to some junior peon for a synopsis, if the synopsis is given depth by the LD for the House member, if they discuss, if they wheel and deal, if the lobbyists incentivize the vote, if the lobbyist push back, if it goes to Senate, if it needs to run through office politics, btw lobbyists are more influential amongst the aristocracy, if there is too much distance between H and S, if it goes to conference committee, if the lobbyist get back in... You think that you can direct a meaningful legislative agenda in 5 months? A bill or two....ok....especially if he took his transition time to get through much of the bueracratic and technical **** that takes months. The problem is that many people think that since you can buy a house in 5 months, and that since that is 60% of a normal human gestation period, it's plenty of time to put meaning and effect to some paper. The truth is, they obstructed his agenda. Republican set a record for obstruction. Why debate a fact? I do agree with the general point...but the actual fact is in his 2 years he passed a ton of extremely significant legislation. Whether you like it or hate it...within the first month of his Presidency he had done more than most do in 4 years and he had checked off about 70% of his campaign promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 Is 5 months a long time? Do you know how long it takes to craft a piece of legislation? Please.... Some of those (so called) legislators have been there for decades. They have bills that they support (or that have been held up in the past) ready to go. As they did when Jumpin Jim switched sides. and as for your committee hold up..........not when there's a super majority. They could ram anything through they wished. But being professional politicians, and thus mealy mouthed cowards, theyy weigh everything until its too late. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I do agree with the general point...but the actual fact is in his 2 years he passed a ton of extremely significant legislation. Whether you like it or hate it...within the first month of his Presidency he had done more than most do in 4 years and he had checked off about 70% of his campaign promises. I heard that on the radio last week..."Obama has signed into law more legislation in less time than any president since LBJ..." Well...okay. But what if the legislation is ****? The point being not that what Obama signed into law is **** (I think it is, you think it isn't. We can go 'round and 'round on that to absolutely no purpose forever.) The point is...volume of pages of legislation is not an accurate measure of accomplishment. Please.... Some of those (so called) legislators have been there for decades. They have bills that they support (or that have been held up in the past) ready to go. As they did when Jumpin Jim switched sides. and as for your committee hold up..........not when there's a super majority. They could ram anything through they wished. But being professional politicians, and thus mealy mouthed cowards, theyy weigh everything until its too late. . As I recall, he used to work on the Hill. Even though it's laughable to think that we'd have anyone on this message board who'd be knowledgeable about their field of have inside knowledge of anything, I'm still deferring to him in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts